Florida Drug Law 893 Unconstitutional | Video

Update: As one recent legal memo has stated: “This statute is unconstitutional on its face, for the reasons stated in Shelton v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 6:07-cv-839-Orl-35-KRS (M.D. Fla., July 27, 2011). In that case, the court granted habeas relief, vacated a conviction for delivery of cocaine, and concluded section 893.13 was unconstitutional on its face because: 1) Section 893.101 eliminated the mens rea element for drug offenses under section 893.13, thus making them strict liability offenses; 2) the constitution bars making felonies strict liability offenses; so 3) section 893.101 renders all felony offenses created in section 893.13 unconstitutional.”

The 893.101 meme also provides:

(1) The … cases of Scott v. State, [808 So. 2d 166] (Fla. 2002) and Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996), holding that the state must prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance found in his or her actual or constructive possession, were contrary to legislative intent.
(2) … [K]nowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the offenses of this chapter.
(3) [When] a defendant asserts th[is] affirmative defense …, the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance [and] the jury shall be instructed on the permissive presumption ….

893.101 Video Update

Florida Drug Attorney Lawyer in Tampa reports there has been a blockbuster ruling that may affect the validity of many Florida drug cases in State and Federal Courts. Casey Ebsary is a Florida Drug Defense Lawyer, an Attorney who has spent the past several days preparing to file challenges to drug charges in State Court, and challenging Federal Sentences that were enhanced using the Florida Drug law Chapter 893. Call Casey at 813-222-2220.

Update August 5 – One Federal Defense Attorney has Reported:

“If an 851 is pending, challenge it under 21 USC 851(c). It looks like you can proceed under 851(c)(2) even if sentence was already imposed by showing “good cause” for the failure to raise it before sentencing.”

The report continues: “Career offenders, ACCA, and those with increased criminal history category will need to go back to state court and get the conviction vacated with a post-conviction motion.  If the D[efendant] was already sentenced, the D[efendant]  can return to federal court with a 2255 after getting the state conviction vacated. See Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005); Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994).”

Timing is Critical – Call 813-222-2220 to Get Started

“You need to exercise “due diligence” in getting the conviction vacated in state court, then file the 2255 within one year.  Although “due diligence” has not been quantified in terms of exactly how long the D[efendant]  has to start the proceedings, in Johnson, the Supreme Court said that “diligence can be shown by prompt action on the part of the petitioner as soon as he is in a position to realize that he has an interest in challenging the prior conviction with its potential to enhance the later sentence.”  544 U.S. at 308.

For pending cases, “If the D[efendant]  is not yet sentenced, you could ask for a variance.”

Casey’s Qualifications are here: http://www.centrallaw.com/CentralLawQualifications.html