Criminal, DUI, Traffic Defense Case Results
At the Rudman Law Group, we understand that criminal charges can have a significant impact on your future. As an experienced criminal defense firm, we are dedicated to providing strong and aggressive representation for our clients throughout Florida. We focus on getting the right results, not the easy ones.
Types of cases:
Every case is different and results will depend on the unique facts of your case. This page contains results from actual cases we were able to obtain on behalf of our clients.
Charges: Driving Under the Influence
Case Number: 2015CT003828AXX
Facts: Our client was stopped for swerving and was observed as having glassy bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol on his person. Since our client was a local executive chef, the odor of alcohol could have easily been explained because our client cooks with alcohol, and the bloodshot eyes could be a result of heat from the kitchen.
Results: We immediately ordered roadside videos to determine our client’s demeanor on the side of the road. No such video existed. After we reviewed all the written allegations, we contacted the State Attorney’s Office and informed them that we would be filing a Motion to Suppress based on an unlawful stop. With all of these factors combined, we were able to convince the State Attorney’s Office to abandon all charges by entering a "No File" on the case.
Charges: Driving Under the Influence
Case Number: 14039332MU10A
Facts: Our client’s vehicle hit the center wall on I-95 and then eventually came to rest on the right shoulder of the road. There, he was approached by law enforcement who conducted a DUI investigation. Our client refused a breath test of his blood alcohol level and the administrating trooper read him his implied consent warnings. Our client was arrested and then performed sobriety exercises at the station as requested.
Results: After ordering all videos and evidence we were able to determine that our client was not properly read his implied consent warnings. Immediately we filed a Motion to Take Depositions so that we could depose the arresting officer in order to lock her into testimony regarding implied consent, for purposes of impeachment at trial. After the deposition, we filed motions to suppress the breath test refusal. As a result, we negotiated for the State to offer our client a Reckless Driving with a Withhold of Adjudication and only 6 months of probation. The Withhold of Adjudication allows our client, to seal this case from his record in the future.
Charges: Driving Under the Influence
Case Number: 2013CT018087AXX
Facts: Our client was approached as he was allegedly urinating outside of his vehicle on the side of the highway. No one else was nearby. After the officer made some observations of impairment, our client was arrested for DUI.
Results: Our office reached out to the State to point out that the Misdemeanor Presence Rule prohibits an officer from arresting someone for DUI if they do not observe that individual in actual physical control of the vehicle. Since our client was outside of his vehicle, the officer had no evidence that our client was in actual physical control, regardless of his statements and behavior. Thus, in this case, we negotiated for the State to dismiss, or No File" the charges as a direct result of our client’s unlawful arrest.
Charges: Driving Under the Influence
Case Number: 2014CT018391AXX
Facts: Our client was stopped for not having her headlights on while driving in a private parking lot. Upon being stopped, officers allegedly noticed signs of impairment. After an investigation, our client was arrested and charged with DUI.
Results: Florida law prohibits individuals from driving on public roads without the use of their headlights. However, there is no law stopping someone from driving in a private parking lot without their headlights activated. Thus, we immediately contacted the State and expressed our concerns that the stop was illegal; The Officers did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain our client. As a result, we negotiated with the State to "No File," or dismiss, the charges against our client.
Charges: Driving Under the Influence
Case Number: 2015CT018679AXX
Facts: After being arrested for DUI, our client submitted to a sample of his breath, which yielded an alcohol content of .031. This number is well below the legal limit. Subsequently, officers asked him to submit to a urine test to test for other drugs, as his behavior was allegedly inconsistent with his breath test results. Our client declined.
Results: We immediately ordered videos of the officer’s dash camera and from the breath testing facility. After thorough review we were able to successfully argue to the State that there was no way the State could prove what substance, if any, our client was under the influence of that night. As a result, the State entered a "No File" as to the charge of DUI, abandoning prosecution.
Charges: Driving Under the Influence
Case Number: 2011CT021180AXX
Facts: Our client was coming home after a long day at work, stopped by a bar, and immediately after leaving was pulled over and arrested for DUI. This being his 4th DUI, we needed to take the case to trial. If he was convicted he would have been required to do substantial jail time and permanently lose his driver’s license.
Results: At jury trial, we successfully argued that our client only consumed drinks immediately before leaving the bar. Therefore the alcohol had not yet been absorbed into his system thereby at the time of stop he could not have been illegally impaired. The jury found our client Not Guilty and our client avoided a permanent license revocation and any jail time.
Jury Verdict: Not Guilty.
Charges: Count 1 - Possession of Cocaine, Count 2 - Reckless Driving
Case Number: 2014CF007216AXX
Facts: Our client was immediately arrested upon being stopped for "Reckless Driving." The allegations were that he was speeding in excess of 40 MPH over the limit. A search of the vehicle revealed cocaine that had been concealed. He was subsequently charged with Possession of Cocaine and Reckless Driving.
Results: As per Florida Statute, and case law, speeding alone does not amount to Reckless Driving. Therefore, we filed a motion asking to suppress any and all evidence stemming from this unlawful arrest. After the State received our motion, they agreed to "No File" the Felony charge and to downfile the case to a Misdemeanor. Our client received a Withhold of Adjudication to this Misdemeanor Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charge, allowing him to have this whole case sealed from his record in the future.
Charges: Count 1 - Possession of Hallucinogenic, Count 2 - Possession of Marijuana Less Than 20 Grams
Case Number: 2013CF011492AXX
Facts: Our client was pulled over for allegedly "swerving within his lane." After smelling marijuana, the officer had reasonable suspicion to search his vehicle. The subsequent search found LSD and marijuana, and our client was charged and arrested for both counts.
Results: We argued that in Florida, you cannot be simply pulled over for weaving in your lane if the officer doesn’t mention in the report that the reason for the stop was a safety check. After filing a Motion to Suppress based on an illegal stop, we were able to get the Felony, Count 1, "Nolle Prossed". The Count 2, Misdemeanor, was resolved to a Withhold of Adjudication and payment of court costs. The Withhold of Adjudication allows our client to have this whole case sealed from his record in the future.
Charges: Possession of Marijuana Over 20 Grams.
Case Number: 2014CF003717AXX
Facts: Our client was charged with receiving a large package of marijuana though the mail after it was intercepted by federal agents. After making a controlled delivery of the package and storming the house, narcotics agents referred the case to the State Attorney and our client was subsequently prosecuted.
Results: We filed a motion to inspect the evidence, including the box in which the marijuana was delivered in. The box was addressed to someone with a different name and had "Return to Sender" written on the package. We argued this distinction, and as a result, we were granted a "Nolle Prosse," allowing our client to have this whole case expunged from her record in the future.
Charges: Possession of Cocaine
Case Number: 2014CF002032AXX
Facts: Our client, was on probation for DUI, and had his date drive his car. She was later stopped for a traffic infraction. He gave consent to search the vehicle and nothing was found. Later, he was removed from the vehicle and questioned on the side of the road, while the driver remained in the vehicle unsupervised. Officers then searched the vehicle again and found a baggie containing cocaine under our client’s seat, and a handgun in the glove compartment. Our client was arrested and charged with Possession of Cocaine.
Results: We immediately obtained a copy of the dash cam video of the backup officer and all other evidence. We were able to successfully argue that the cocaine could not have possibly belonged to our client, since the initial search rendered nothing. It was not until after his date was left alone in the car, and a secondary search occurred that cocaine was discovered. The State entered a "No File," dismissing all charges within 30 days of arrest.
Charges: Possession of Marijuana Over 20 Grams
Case Number: 2016CF002930AXX
Facts: Our client was woken up by U.S. Marshals kicking down his door and executing an arrest warrant for a guest staying overnight. The guest was arrested for trafficking large amounts of marijuana. After the guest was taken into custody, our client was told that his house "reeked" of marijuana. Under duress, our Client gave consent for the officers to search his home. Narcotics Agents from the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office arrived, searched his home, and allegedly found more than 20 grams of marijuana.
Results: Based on the pending charges against the house guest, we were able to argue to the State that they did not have enough evidence to show that the Marijuana belonged to our client. Furthermore, we raised various legal issues with the search, including the fact that no warrant was ever produced. As a direct result, the State downfiled the charges to Misdemeanor Possession charges. We were then able to negotiate to dismiss these charges if our client completed a 4 hour online drug course and 10 hours of community service. The State agreed.
Charges: Possession of Hashish, Possession of Marijuana Less Than 20 Grams, Possession of Controlled Substance without Prescription, Possession of Paraphernalia (6 Counts)
Case Number: 2015CF002215AXX
Facts: Our client was pulled over for Improper Change of Lane. After allegedly detecting the smell of marijuana, officers searched the vehicle and found Marijuana Wax (concentrated marijuana), Marijuana, 3 glass pipes, and a grinder. Our client then allegedly admitted to all of it being his.
Results: We were able to negotiate with the State to dismiss all but the first 3 counts. For the first three counts we were able to argue to the State to let our Client enter into a Pre-Trial Intervention program. Upon successful completion of the program all charges were dropped. As of now, all charges have been dismissed, and our client is eligible to have this entire case expunged.
Charges: Possession of Cocaine
Case Number: 15007081CF10A
Facts: Our client and his date were approached by police as they were on the side of the road attempting to find jewelry that had fallen out of our client’s vehicle. The deputy told them to forget about the jewelry and leave the area. Just a few blocks down, our client’s vehicle’s tire was punctured and became flat. He was approached by the same deputy who told him to hurry up or he would be arrested. Frustrated, our client spoke to the deputy in an unflattering tone, and was then immediately arrested and placed in handcuffs. A search incident to arrest revealed a cocaine baggie in our client’s shorts.
Results: We strongly advocated to the State that they abandon all charges because it was our position that our client was illegally stopped and detained by the deputy. His arrest was also unlawful, because simply addressing the deputy in an unflattering tone is not a crime for which you can be arrested. We relentlessly debated with the State regarding these legal issues until they agreed to abandon prosecution in this case by entering a "No File".
Category: Possession/Drug Charges
Case Number: 2016CF003813AXX
Facts: Our client was in a friend’s vehicle, outside of a bar, with a date. Unbeknownst to our client, the driver had stashed cocaine in the car. When police approached the car and requested consent to search the car, the cocaine was found, but no one took ownership. Our client’s date said it was hers, so our client objected, telling the officer he knew it was not hers. The officer believed this to mean that the cocaine belonged to our client, and arrested him for Possession of Cocaine.
Results: We quickly argued the flaws in the case, including, but not limited to, the fact that someone else on the scene clearly admitted the drugs to be theirs. After reviewing the video evidence and reports we conveyed our concern regarding the inconsistencies in the evidence. We successfully negotiated with the State to abandon prosecution on the charge of Possession of Cocaine and enter a "No File".
Charges: Battery on a Person 65 Years or Older
Case Number: 2015CF000224AXX
Facts: Our client was charged with Battery on a Person 65 Years or Older when the alleged victim, a neighbor, called the police and told them that he was punched in the face after a verbal altercation with our client. Our client was identified from a photo lineup.
Results: We were able to locate a video recording of the incident captured by one of our client’s friends. In the video, it was clear that the alleged victim was the initial aggressor, and that it was one of our client’s friends, and not our client, who struck the man. We brought this to the attention of the State, who then immediately abandoned prosecution by filing a "No File."
Charges: 4 Counts of Attempted First Degree Murder With a Firearm, 2 Counts of Discharging a Firearm from a Vehicle, 3 Counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, 1 Count of Shooting into a Building
Case Number: 2013CF002909AXX
Facts: Our client was in prison on other charges when his cellmate lit him on fire. Upon his release, our client allegedly located this cellmate to seek revenge. Our client allegedly drove by his house on 4 separate occasions and shot at him every time. There were many witnesses, including our client’s ex-girlfriend, which were allegedly in the vehicle. As a result of his actions and his criminal record, our client was facing a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison as to 4 counts of Attempted First Degree Murder With a Firearm, 15 years minimum mandatory as to 3 other counts, and 3 years minimum mandatory as to another 3 other counts.
Results: We visited our client in jail where he was being held without bond. We began our investigation and realized there were more than 50 witnesses listed by the State. We intended to depose all of them and hire a private investigator to look into the alleged victim. However, our client was unable to afford such an intense pre-trial investigation. Therefore, we requested the court find him indigent for costs, which then allowed the government to pay for the depositions and investigation. Our order was granted and we set multiple depositions.
The State’s first offer was 20 years, which our client immediately rejected. We were able to present credible witnesses to help our client’s case. As a result, the State dropped the offer to 10 years, knowing that our client faced mandatory life in prison on 4 different counts were he to be convicted after trial. Although we considered this a fair offer, our client still declined it. He told us he could only take 5. We kept fighting and finally negotiated with the State to offer 5 years, even though our client would have been sentenced to life if the jury found him guilty on just 1 of the 4 counts of Attempted Murder. We tirelessly pursued the result our client wanted.
Charges: Sexual Battery on a Helpless Person
Case Number: 2014CF010190AXX
Facts: Our client, the alleged victim, and some friends were out drinking and ended up sleeping at our client’s house. The alleged victim’s friend woke up in the middle of the night and claimed that our client was having intercourse with the alleged victim while she was asleep. This witness left the house, and called the police. When the police arrived, the alleged victim told them that she had no recollection of what happened and that she would not allow our client to have sex with her because they are just friends and have never been together. However, the alleged victim then told another detective that they’ve had sexual relations in the past, contradicting her previous statement.
Results: Our client informed us that he and the alleged victim had an ongoing relationship for some time now. He was able to pull pictures from his old email, showing him and the alleged victim on a romantic getaway together, including a picture of the boarding passes for a cruise that he and the alleged victim took. We presented the State with this information, and pointed out that the alleged victim had already contradicted herself to the police. Any type of pleading to a Sexual Battery would mean that our client would become a sex offender for life. Therefore we pleaded for the State to let us take a deposition of the alleged victim. At the deposition the alleged victim deferred to the State and agreed to revise the charge to Felony Battery and a Withhold of Adjudication, meaning our client would not become a convicted felon or a sex offender. In the end, we were able to keep our client out of prison, avoid a felony conviction, and avoid him being a registered sex offender.
Charges: Battery on a Person 65 Years or Older
Case Number: 2013CF002932AXXX
Facts: It was alleged that our client was highly intoxicated when he came home and struck his 85 year old mother multiple times. The probable cause affidavit alleges that our client even choked and kicked his mother while she was on the ground.
Results: Although initially the State’s offer required our client do jail time, we were able to negotiate for our client to receive treatment. We successfully argued for probation in lieu of jail time as long as our client underwent a substance abuse and mental health evaluation with recommended treatment, to solve the underlying problem. We were able to get a Withhold of Adjudication which also allows our client, once off probation, to seal his record.
Charge: Battery in a County Jail
Case Number: 2014CF013142AXX
Facts: Our client was charged with striking another inmate in the County jail. It was alleged that the entire incident was captured on jailhouse surveillance video. Based on his record, the State sought to have our client declared a Habitual Violent Offender and increase the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years in prison. The State presented no other offer in this case but to simply state that they wanted him to do the maximum penalty allowable by law.
Results: We immediately began to sort through the evidence and discovered the alleged "victim" was a convicted kidnapper and murderer who has severe psychological issues and was currently under prosecution by the State for numerous counts of weapons possession in the jailhouse. We argued our client was the victim of repeated threats of violence which was met with inaction by the supervising jailhouse guards. Due to our aggressive defense the State offered our client the opportunity to resolve his case to the 447 days he had already served, substantially less than the State’s original offer.
Charge: Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Case Number: 2013CF006664AXX
Facts: Our client was charged with attempting to run down the alleged victim with his car after a confrontation at a local convenience store.
Results: We began to uncover inconsistencies and a complete lack of candor and credibility on behalf of the alleged victim. As a direct result, we were able to successfully negotiate with the State to dismiss all charges against our client upon successful completion of 10 hours of community service.
Charge: Aggravated Battery
Case Number: 2013CF010931AXX
Facts: Our client, while exiting a bar, was approached, accosted and attacked by a rather large, drunken man. It was alleged that our client struck first and punched this male, knocking him to the ground. The friends of the alleged victim claimed that while unconscious on the ground, our client continued to kick him. The police arrived and believed the alleged victim’s story, since it was supported by the alleged victim’s girlfriend. As a result, our client was charged with Aggravated Battery.
Results: It was our position that our client acted with the sole intention of defending himself from serious bodily injury or death, when our client kicked the alleged victim. We filed a Motion for Prosecutorial Immunity (or in common terms, a Stand Your Ground motion) and argued that our client was well within his rights in defending his life. After vigorous negotiations, the State dismissed the Felony charge in exchange for a plea of guilty as to a Misdemeanor Battery charge. The State also agreed to Withhold Adjudication, meaning that our client can seal his record.
Charges: Robbery by Sudden Snatching, Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, Criminal Mischief
Case Number: 2014CF011903AXX
Facts: Our client was approached by a security officer in his neighborhood for violating association rules by power-washing his driveway past the allowable time of 4:00 P.M. on a Sunday. Our client acknowledged this warning, however, he was almost done so he proceeded to finish up the last remaining patch of his driveway. The security guard then, without permission, pursued our client onto his property and shoved a phone in our client’s face, yelling that he had captured it all on video. It was then alleged that our client then took the phone from the security guard and threw it into a bucket of water, thus destroying the phone.
Results: We strenuously argued that the security guard acted outside of his rules of operation by moving beyond an "observe and report" role and pursuing our client onto his property. Additionally, our client had an absolute right to forcibly eject a trespasser and to use a reasonable amount of force to do so. After extensive legal arguing, we were able to negotiate with the State to abandon prosecution and enter a "Nolle Prosse," meaning that our client can expunge his record.
Charge: Domestic Battery
Case Number: M-15-018043
Facts: Concerned that his girlfriend was cheating on him, our client began scrolling through her cell phone which was left on a table. Instantly enraged, his girlfriend grabbed a knife and began chasing our client. He raised his hands in an effort to create space between him and her. The knife punctured our client and he pushed her away. She called the police and alleged that our client had bettered her. He was taken into custody and charged with pushing and hitting his girlfriend.
Results: Upon investigation we discovered what we believed to be a complete lack of any physical evidence to support the allegations of the alleged victim. As the investigation continued, we uncovered harassing phone calls from the alleged victim to not only our client, but also to his family. Eventually, after numerous conversations with the State, we negotiated to abandon prosecution in this case and file a "Nolle Prosse," meaning that our client can expunge his record.
Charges: Domestic Battery by Strangulation
Case Number: 15009748CF10A
Facts: After a lengthy and tumultuous relationship, our client and his girlfriend decided it was best to part ways. She invited him over to her house to recover his belongings and while there, she began going through his phone. Our client tried retrieving the phone but was clawed at by her. He pushed her back in self-defense and she retaliated by pepper-spraying him. He immediately left the house. Weeks later, our client was arrested on a warrant because she had called police after he left, checked herself into a hospital, and alleged that he strangled her.
Results: After looking into the evidence and text messages between our client and the alleged victim; we entered photos into evidence which depicted claw marks on our client’s face and arms, alluding to the fact that he was not the initial aggressor. Another element is the fact that the alleged victim and the defendant have to be actively dating or had a previous domestic partnership, in order for the battery to be filed as a Felony. The evidence showed that they were no longer dating, and that a domestic partnership could not be established based on the fact that the two never lived together. Based on the law and the facts in the case, we continued to negotiate with the State, when the eventually agreed to drop the charges.
Charges: Domestic Battery by Strangulation, False Imprisonment, Domestic Battery
Case Number: 2016CF001259AXX
Facts: Our client returned home from work and found that his girlfriend had made new plans to obtain drugs. Our client expressed his discontent with her decision-making in which she responded by throwing our client’s laptop. He tried to calm his girlfriend down but she ran outside and told neighbors she was being strangled and that they should call police. However, when police arrived, she told them she was being held in the house and was not free to leave.
Results: We immediately contacted the State and pointed out how the alleged victim had contradicted her herself in her statement of events. There was lack of markings on the victim’s neck, there was an issue with her story by claiming she was being held against her will when she had run out of the house to ask a neighbor to call police. Based on the evidence, or lack thereof, we were able to convince the State to abandon prosecution by entering a "No File" on all charges.
Charges: Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon
Case Number: F-15-003400
Facts: After receiving a panicked 911 call from our client’s, soon to be ex-wife, alleging that our client had hit her with a lamp. Upon hearing her story, the police made the decision to arrest our client for Felony Domestic Battery, alleging that the lamp was a "deadly weapon" and used in the commission of the crime.
Results: Our office accumulated evidence to support our claim that there were no independent witnesses and no medical evidence to substantiate the alleged injuries. We were able to document a history of the alleged victim being less than truthful, and therefore able to convince the State to abandon prosecution in this case and enter a "No File," meaning that our client can expunge his record.
Theft / Robbery Charges
Charges: Grand Theft
Case Number: 2014CF006320AXX
Facts: Our client previously worked at a car dealership and was allowed to rent a vehicle from them at a lower cost, even after he stopped working there. Our client rented a vehicle and kept it for months longer than he was supposed to. Eventually, his previous employer called the police and reported the vehicle stolen.
Results: We became aware that our client’s contact at the dealership kept telling our client not to worry about returning the car, and that he could continue to drive it for a few more weeks. After doing some research into the facts and law surrounding the case, we were able to convince the State to abandon prosecution and enter a "No File" as to all the charges by validly arguing that our client had apparent authority to continue to drive the vehicle.
Charges: Grand Theft, False Pawn Verification
Case Number: 2011CF000783AXX
Facts: The alleged victim became aware that some of her jewelry was missing and that the last person to be around it was her niece’s boyfriend, our client. Our client allegedly pawned the items and signed documents stating they were his and not stolen. Then, our client allegedly admitted to police he took the jewelry.
Results: We were able to negotiate with the State to allow our client to enter into a Pre-Trial Intervention program. After 6 months, a theft class, and some community service hours, the State agreed to "Nolle Prosse," or dismiss, all charges.
Charges: Grand Theft
Case Number: 2014MM003659AXX
Facts: Our client was captured on camera allegedly taking the phone of another individual at a local grocery store. The alleged victim left the phone on the counter and turned away for a few minutes. It was at this time that our client allegedly took the phone. He was charged with Grand Theft.
Results: Before the State could make a filing decision we voiced our concern that they shouldn’t file this as a Felony because there was no way to establish the value of used cell phone for the purposes making a prima facie case of felony Grand Theft. We were successful in this argument and the charges were reduced to Misdemeanor Petit Theft. However, based on our client’s vast criminal record, the State pursued a sentence of 60 days in the Palm Beach County Jail. After vigorous negotiations with the State, we managed to reduce the sentence to only 5 days in the Palm Beach County Jail. Instead of being content with this result, we further argued with the State that they could not prove intent, as our client was under the belief that he had grabbed his own phone by accident. This allowed us to solidify our argument so the State gave our client absolutely no jail time.
Charges: Grand Theft, Dealing in Stolen Property, False Ownership Information to Pawn Shop, Grand Theft in Excess of $20,000, Burglary of Unoccupied Dwelling
Case Number: 2015CF004937AXX
Facts: Our client allegedly stole more than $100,000 worth of items while house sitting for his neighbors. As a result, he was facing a maximum of 45 years in prison based on his charges alone.
Results: Before an Information was filed, we were able to convince the State Attorney’s Office to "No File" the charges of Grand Theft in excess of $20,000 and Burglary of Unoccupied Dwelling. This brought the maximum down to 25 years. However, the State was still pushing to make an example of our client because of the amount he had allegedly taken. After months of vigorous negotiations, we were able to avoid our client going to jail, in exchange for probation. More importantly, we aggressively argued to the State to offer a Withhold of Adjudication, meaning that once our client is off probation, he can apply to having the whole case sealed from his record.
Charges: Retail Theft
Case Number: 13020990MM10A
Facts: Our client was shopping at Publix after having simple eye surgery. In a state of confusion, she forgot to pay for some of the items in her cart near the top basket. She did not realize she had started to walk out with the items still in her cart.
Results: Do to our client’s job she could not risk anything to appear on her record and therefore was ready to go to trial. We did an independent investigation of the Publix where these allegations occurred, finding that our client had not cleared all points of sale when she was stopped. There is a location between the outside door and inside door where the shopping carts are located, and there are items for sale located within that part of the store. Thus, we were able to convince the jury that Retail Theft had not occurred, because a key element of the crime is that the Defendant move past all points of sale.
Jury Verdict: Not Guilty
Charges: Retail Theft
Case Number: 14002783MM10A
Facts: Our client was shopping at Kohl’s after having a serious medical procedure. All medical records suggested our client not to drive or operate heavy machinery 24 hours after the procedure. Her sister had driven her and was her care taker for the weekend. In a state of confusion and drowsiness, she tried on earrings and a bracelet and left the store without paying for the items.
Results: We obtained all medical records in preparation for trial, and took the deposition of the loss prevention officer and arresting officer. We also prepped our client, as we expected her to take the stand and testify. The judge forced our hand to a non-jury trial, which is permitted if the judge guarantees no jail time and a Withhold of Adjudication even if our client was found guilty. In the end, we convinced the judge to find our client Not Guilty by way of involuntary intoxication, claiming that she was not aware of the effects of the medicine she was given during her medical procedure.
Verdict: Not Guilty
Case Number: 16006402MM10A
Facts: Our client was arrested on a warrant out of Colorado. Although he and the Hollywood Police Department informed us it was for a simple charge of Possession of Marijuana, we came to find out that the warrant was for a whole lot more, including money laundering and trafficking.
Results: Although Florida has no jurisdiction over a Colorado bond, we stipulated it did for the purpose of receiving an extradition bond so that our client could get out and turn himself in back in Colorado. Were it not for us zealously advocating for an extradition bond, our client would have waited in the Broward County Jail for almost a month, before being transported in a bus in shackles, all the way to Colorado. Instead, we were able to get our client out of jail and give him more than a week to get his life together to turn himself in to Colorado.
Charges: Driving While License Suspended – Deemed Habitual Traffic Offender
Facts: Our client received a letter from the DMV stating that her license would be suspended and she would be deemed a Habitual Traffic Offender because of a plea she took 5 years before.
Results: We filed a Motion to Vacate on the case and then reviewed the court files. After reviewing the disposition documents, it was apparent that our client did not plea to a crime that would have any effect on her license, as it was an amended charge. However, the clerk failed to record that. We worked with the Clerk to update their files and sent them over to the DMV who lifted the pending suspension before our client’s license was formally suspended.
NO FILE:Many times, we are able to explain the Accused's side of the story to the State Attorney's Office at the INTAKE STAGE and convince them to decline to file formal charges by entering a NO FILE.
• DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT: This is also sometimes called PRE-TRIAL INTERVENTION or DRUG COURT. A Deferred Prosecution Agreement is a contract between the State and the Accused where if the Accused completes a term of pre-trial supervision, the State will dismiss all charges by entering a NOLLE PROSSE.
• NOLLE PROSSE/DISMISSED: This is the legal document filed with court by the State in order to formally DISMISS charges which have already been filed.
• JURY TRIAL: This is by far the most risky of all of the possible outcomes of the Accused's case. The best case scenario is if the Accused is found NOT GUILTY by the jury and acquitted of all charges. If the Accused is found guilty after jury trial, there are no guarantees as to what penalties the court will hand down. Most times the punishment after trial is more severe than that which was offered by the State Attorney as part of a PLEA NEGOTIATION. Hiring an experienced and aggressive Trial Attorney like Douglas J. Rudman can make all the difference!!!
See additional case results below
START YOUR FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION TODAY