STUART, FL (November 19, 2019) — The Martin County Sheriff’s Office announced that deputies had charged a 57-year-old man who is reportedly homeless with several criminal charges stemming from two separate drug dealing incidents. Both incidents allegedly occurred within two weeks of each other during the month of November, according to TC Palm. The man remains behind bars in the Martin County Jail because he did not post the $120,000 bond set for his return to court. There was no court date announced for his next appearance to answer to the eight felony charges.
Martin County Sheriff’s Office deputies reported that an informant helped make the case against the 57-year-old homeless man. Arrest affidavits filed by law enforcement in the case indicated that the incident that was first in time involved the $60.00 sale of MDMA, or Molly, and cocaine in its freebase or crack form to one or two informants. The second incident, after which the deputy sheriffs placed the man under arrest, involved a $40.00 sale of crack cocaine to at least one informant.
The Martin County Sheriff’s office charged with the man with one count of dealing narcotics within one thousand feet of a school, three counts of possession of a controlled substance, three counts of selling the controlled substance, and two counts of using a cellphone or two-way communication device unlawfully. Both incidents happened in the East Stuart area.
Possession of a Controlled Substance Charges in Florida
Potential defenses to criminal charges depend upon the facts of the case. When a person is charged with drug dealing charges, the defense could use both pre-trial and trial strategies that work for the defendant to walk away from the charges or receive a lighter sentence.
Closely examining the actions of the police for compliance with constitutional and statutory obligations is always a viable line of defense in drug possession cases. If the police violated the rights of the accused, then a judge could issue a ruling that the fruits of the illegal search must be suppressed from the trial.
Entrapment is a defense that could be available to some people who are facing drug dealing charges. The entrapment defense allows the accused to claim that, but for the undue influence of the police, the accused would not have sold narcotics. The will of the accused must be overborne by the tactics of the police.
Negotiating a reduction in charges is an effective strategy in many cases. Pleading guilty or nolo contendere to drug charges helps the prosecution out substantially. The prosecution does not need to bear the expense of a trial, and the judge could look more favorably upon a person who admits wrongdoing when a person changes his or her plea from not guilty to guilty or nolo contendere. The prosecution provides an incentive to plead to the defendant by reducing the charges in exchange for a plea. The prosecution gets their conviction without worrying about if the police did something wrong that requires suppression of the evidence or worry about whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to convict.
The ultimate decision to plead guilty lies in the hands of the accused. The accused always has the option of going to trial because her or his constitutional rights guarantee him or her the right to a trial on the merits of the case.