.png){kind=spacer}
STALKING (784.048(2))
CASE DISMISSED (NOLLE PROSEQUI)
Escambia County, FL
5 de noviembre de 2025
Client faced a Stalking charge (F.S. § 784.048(2)), a first-degree misdemeanor carrying a maximum of 1 year in the Escambia County Jail and a $1,000 fine. Stalking charges carry outsized collateral consequences beyond the statutory penalties — a conviction can result in the issuance of a permanent injunction against the defendant, a permanent designation on the criminal record that is flagged in background checks, and devastating effects on custody, employment, and housing. The prosecution alleged that the client engaged in a pattern of [REDACTED] conduct directed at [REDACTED], causing substantial emotional distress. The client maintained that their actions had been [REDACTED] and did not constitute the willful, malicious, and repeated course of conduct required to prove stalking under Florida law. The [REDACTED] context of the alleged interactions was critical to the defense theory.
The defense team immediately launched a detailed investigation into the factual basis for the stalking allegation, including analysis of [REDACTED] communications, witness accounts, and the timeline of alleged conduct. After identifying significant gaps between the State's allegations and the legal elements required to prove stalking — specifically, the requirement of repeated conduct with no legitimate purpose that causes substantial emotional distress — we presented our analysis to the prosecution through focused negotiations. We made it clear that the defense was fully prepared to litigate every element of this charge at trial and had identified [REDACTED] evidence that would undermine the State's theory. Faced with a defense that had exposed the weaknesses in the case and was ready for trial, the prosecution entered a Nolle Prosequi — a complete dismissal of the stalking charge. The client was spared a conviction that would have followed them for the rest of their life and avoided the potential issuance of a permanent injunction. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; each case depends on its facts and circumstances.