OUR RESULTS

Client was charged in Santa Rosa County with Burglary with Assault or Battery (F.S. § 810.02(2)(a)), a first-degree felony punishable by a term of years up to life imprisonment—a charge with extraordinarily high stakes, including the risk of a lifelong felony record and severe sentencing exposure. This matter began on April 14, 2025, at 4154 S. Cambridge Way in Pace — a quiet, residential block in Santa Rosa County — when deputies responded to a disturbance at a home near the heart of the Pace community. The reporting officer on scene was LE Deputy Kyler Steven Bohner (ID 1301), with LE Sgt. Randy Dahl (ID 1125) listed as the approving supervisor. Booking and processing were handled by Santa Rosa personnel including Robert Glen Hardy and Logan Miles Enterkin, and the arrest report and booking paperwork are part of the public record. The case arose from a heated dispute between siblings while their mother was seriously ill, a situation that the State treated as a domestic-violence-related incident because the parties were family members under Florida law.

Client was charged in Santa Rosa County with Domestic Violence Battery (F.S. § 784.03) and Domestic Violence Assault (F.S. § 784.011)—offenses treated as “domestic violence” when the parties qualify as family/household members under F.S. § 741.28.

This was an intense Santa Rosa County matter that initially looked like a career-ending prosecution. The client was charged with DUI causing serious bodily injury (F.S. § 316.193(3)(c)2), driving without a valid license causing death/serious injury (F.S. § 322.34(6)(a)), and hit-and-run/fail-to-stop involving serious bodily injury (F.S. § 316.027(2)(b)) — a charging posture that exposed the client to multiple felony counts, substantial prison terms (each felony count carrying potential prison exposure and heavy fines), and catastrophic collateral consequences including a permanent felony record, employment ruin, and lifelong immigration and housing impacts.The case drew substantial local media attention: a multi-vehicle collision in a quiet residential neighborhood, two seriously injured victims, and multiple witnesses whose statements initially appeared strongly adverse. At first glance the prosecution’s theory looked ironclad and the courtroom stakes were extremely high.

Client was charged in Okaloosa County, Florida with Sale / Manufacture / Delivery of Cannabis (F.S. § 893.13(1)(a)2), a third-degree felony carrying a maximum of up to 5 years in Florida State Prison and up to a $5,000 fine.

Client faced a Stalking charge (F.S. § 784.048(2)), a first-degree misdemeanor carrying a maximum of up to 1 year in jail (and up to a $1,000 fine).

Client was originally charged with Trafficking in Cannabis (F.S. § 893.135(1)(a)1) based on an allegation involving a large quantity of cannabis brought into Florida through a local airport. Under the trafficking statute, that level is a first-degree felony with a mandatory minimum of 3 years in prison and a $25,000 fine, and it is otherwise punishable under Florida’s general penalty statutes—up to 30 years in prison for a first-degree felony

Client was cited for No Valid Driver License (F.S. § 322.03). Because the client was a non-citizen, the defense prioritized an outcome that minimized immigration-related risk and protected the client’s future opportunities.

Client was originally charged with DUI (F.S. § 316.193), a charge that on a first conviction carries a maximum of up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1,000 fine—plus the serious, long-term consequences that come with a DUI conviction.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with Petit Theft (property value $100 to under $750) under F.S. § 812.014(2)(f), a first-degree misdemeanor. The charge carried a maximum possible punishment of up to 1 year in jail and up to a $1,000 fine.

Client faced Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Serious Bodily Injury (a second-degree felony) with a statutory maximum of up to 15 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. The prosecutor would not accept less than 24 months state prison, but we refused and prepared the case through jury selection for trial.

Client was charged in Santa Rosa County, Florida with multiple felony counts tied to an alleged fraud scheme, including Accessing a Computer System Without Authorization With Intent to Defraud or Obtain Property (F.S. § 815.06), Organized Fraud (Less Than $20,000) (F.S. § 817.034(4)(a)3), and Criminal Mischief ($1,000 or Greater) (F.S. § 806.13(1)(b)3). These were third-degree felony exposures—up to 5 years in prison per count (and up to a $5,000 fine per count)—meaning the case carried potentially life-changing consequences if the charges stuck.

Client was charged in Okaloosa County, Florida with Driving While License Suspended — Habitual Traffic Offender (F.S. § 322.34(5)), a third-degree felony. The charge carried a maximum possible punishment of up to 5 years in Florida State Prison and up to a $5,000 fine.

Client faced multiple charges, including POSSESSION OF CANNABIS OVER 20 GRAMS (F.S. 893.13(6)(A)) and RESISTING/OBSTRUCTING WITHOUT VIOLENCE (F.S. 843.02).

Client was charged with FALSE IMPRISONMENT (F.S. 787.02(2)) along with BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1). These allegations are serious because they can expose a person to incarceration, strict pretrial conditions, and long-term reputational harm—especially where the State frames the facts as a coercive restraint.

Client faced high-stakes felony allegations, including BURGLARY WITH ASSAULT OR BATTERY (F.S. 810.02(2)(A)), plus GRAND THEFT AUTO (F.S. 812.014(2)(C)6) and CRIMINAL MISCHIEF ($200–$1,000) (F.S. 806.13(1)(B)2). This type of charging posture is often designed to create maximum leverage for the State: prison exposure, multi-count sentencing risk, and a felony record that can follow someone for life.

Client was charged with BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1) stemming from an incident in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Even a misdemeanor battery allegation can carry outsized consequences: potential jail exposure, restrictive pretrial conditions (including no-contact orders), employment and housing complications, and reputational damage that can linger long after the case ends.

Client faced DOMESTIC BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1) along with an allegation of CONDITION OF RELEASE VIOLATION. Domestic-violence-labeled cases often come with immediate, real-world consequences—no-contact restrictions, housing instability, firearm-rights concerns, and the risk of a permanent record even without a prison-level charge.

Client was charged with PETIT THEFT (F.S. 812.014(3)(A)) in Escambia County, Florida. Theft accusations are deceptively damaging: beyond potential jail exposure, they can interfere with jobs, security clearances, housing applications, and future background checks.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with CRIMINAL MISCHIEF ($200–$1,000) (F.S. 806.13(1)(B)2) and BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1). When a case includes an alleged violence count, the collateral consequences can be immediate—no-contact conditions, employment risk, and reputational harm—before any final outcome is reached.

Client faced multiple serious felony allegations in Santa Rosa County, Florida, including a BURGLARY count under F.S. 810.02 (subsection to verify), along with theft-related allegations. Burglary cases frequently carry severe consequences: significant incarceration exposure, potential enhancements depending on the allegation, and long-term record ramifications that can follow a person for life

Client was charged with BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1) in Escambia County, Florida. Even misdemeanor cases can create serious consequences: jail exposure, court-ordered restrictions, and a record that can interfere with jobs and housing.

Client faced felony drug allegations in Escambia County, Florida, including POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL/MANUFACTURE/DELIVER (SCHEDULE I) (F.S. 893.13(1)(A)1), POSSESSION OF CANNABIS OVER 20 GRAMS (F.S. 893.13(6)(A)), and POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA (F.S. 893.147(1)). With felony exposure, the stakes extend beyond jail or prison—there are major collateral consequences for employment, housing, education, and financial stability.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1). Battery allegations can trigger serious collateral impact: no-contact restrictions, employment complications, and reputational harm—often long before a case is resolved.

Client was charged with DUI (F.S. 316.193(1)) in Escambia County, Florida—a charge that carries not only possible jail exposure, but also serious collateral consequences, including license sanctions, increased insurance costs, and the lasting stigma of a DUI conviction.

Client was charged with BATTERY—TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. 784.03(1)(A)1) in Escambia County, Florida. Even misdemeanor violence allegations can create immediate and lasting problems—potential jail exposure, restrictive court conditions, and background-check consequences that can follow someone long after the case ends.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with operating as an UNREGISTERED ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR (F.S. 489.531(1)(a)) — an allegation that threatens not only criminal exposure but the client’s livelihood. At stake were criminal penalties (misdemeanor-level exposure that can include jail time, fines, and court costs), civil and administrative sanctions (licensing loss, business injunctions, and heavy financial penalties), and long-term damage to reputation and the ability to work in the trade. That pressure worked. The State ultimately filed a NOLLE PROSEQUI, dismissing the charge. This outcome spared the client a criminal conviction, preserved their ability to pursue licensure and contract work, avoided crippling fines or business injunctions, and removed the risk of a record that would follow them for years. In short: we protected the client’s freedom and professional future by refusing to be intimidated and forcing the prosecution to prove what it could not.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with DAMAGE TO PROPERTY / CRIMINAL MISCHIEF — BREAK/INJURE FENCE (F.S. 810.115) following an incident that the State initially pursued as a county-court matter (after a related file, 2025 CF 001728 A, was transferred to county court). Damage-to-property allegations can range from a misdemeanor with county-jail exposure, fines, and restitution to felony-level prison exposure when the loss is substantial or the defendant has prior convictions — consequences that can upend employment, housing, and personal reputation.

Client was charged in Santa Rosa County, Florida with AGGRAVATED ASSAULT BY THREAT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON (F.S. § 784.021) — an allegation that carries serious felony exposure and real, lasting consequences. Even when an assault never results in physical injury, an aggravated-assault theory tied to a deadly weapon can expose a defendant to a felony conviction (commonly a third-degree felony), potential imprisonment (typically up to 5 years), significant fines, and the collateral fallout: loss of employment opportunities, damage to reputation, restrictions on firearms, and consequences for licensing or immigration.

Client was charged in Santa Rosa County, Florida with DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) (F.S. § 316.193(1)), an offense that on a first conviction commonly carries up to 6 months in county jail, fines (up to $1,000), and serious license sanctions — penalties that can ripple into employment, housing, and financial instability.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with a high-stakes burglary count under F.S. 810.02(2)(c)2 (alleged entry of a dwelling or structure causing more than $1,000 in damage) and a related criminal mischief count (F.S. 806.13(1)(b)2). A burglary theory like this carries serious felony exposure (depending on subsection it can carry many years in prison—first-degree burglary exposure can reach decades; second-degree felonies carry up to 15 years), while the criminal-mischief allegation risks county jail, fines, and restitution that would compound the client’s legal and financial burden.

Client was charged in Okaloosa County, Florida with DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BATTERY — TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. § 784.03(1)(a)1) — a first-degree misdemeanor that carries up to 1 year in county jail and fines and, when labeled “domestic,” triggers immediate collateral harms (no-contact orders, possible civil injunctions, firearm restrictions, and substantial immigration exposure for non-citizens).This matter became dramatically more urgent when the client, a lawful permanent resident, was taken into ICE custody while the criminal case remained pending. Rather than let detention silence the defense, we used a little-known but effective procedural tool — seeking and documenting a waiver of the client’s personal appearance under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.180 — so the criminal case could proceed without the client physically present. While the client was in immigration custody we obtained written, signed authorizations and necessary waivers, preserved all material discovery, and filed a motion demanding a jury trial in absentia. That aggressive, trial-ready posture — combined with the practical reality that the client could not be produced for routine court appearances — materially shifted the prosecutor’s calculus.

Client — a retired, elderly gentleman — was charged in Santa Rosa County, Florida with DUI causing damage to property or person (F.S. § 316.193(3)(c)1) and leaving the scene of a crash involving property damage (F.S. § 316.061(1)). A DUI conviction of this kind threatens serious consequences for someone in his position: possible incarceration, heavy fines, license suspension, long-term insurance and mobility impacts, and reputational and practical harms that are especially acute for older adults. The arrest report shows the officer’s case rested heavily on two things: (1) field observations of impairment at the scene and (2) the client’s post-Miranda admission that he had taken prescribed medication the prior night (the report records that Mr. Golden admitted to taking prescription sedatives). Notably, breath testing at the jail registered 0.000, and the client had difficulty producing a urine sample — gaps that undermined any chemical-proof theory. The officer’s observations and the client’s admission of lawful, prescribed medication were, in the prosecution’s view, enough to charge DUI; for us, they were the starting points for a rigorous factual and medical defense.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with BATTERY BY STRANGULATION (F.S. § 784.031(1)) — a felony offense that can carry up to 5 years in prison and substantial fines — and a companion BATTERY — TOUCH OR STRIKE (F.S. § 784.03(1)(a)1) misdemeanor (up to 1 year in county jail). The alleged incident arose from a volatile personal interaction: what began as a friendship that developed into a romantic connection, then deteriorated when the victim (who the report records as married) was drinking and became confrontational after speaking with someone else. According to the victim’s statement and the arrest report, the disagreement escalated, the victim raised her voice, and the client assaulted her.

Client was charged in Escambia County, Florida with FAILURE TO REGISTER MOTOR VEHICLE (F.S. § 320.02(1)), an allegation that can result in vehicle-related penalties, fines, and administrative sanctions — and which, depending on the circumstances and prior history, can have more serious collateral consequences for work and mobility.

This was a hard, high-stakes Santa Rosa County matter that began on Navarre Beach at the Sea Oat Pavilion (8755 Sea Oat Cir.), where deputies responded to reports of a male screaming about religion and sexually explicit topics and acting aggressively around families and children. The reporting deputy on the scene was LE Deputy J. Nelson (ID 1708); the booking/processing paperwork shows deputies Jason Anthony Grammer, Jeremy Ryan Odom, and James Allen Hazelwood were involved in the post-arrest processing. The arrest report and booking paperwork are part of the public record. According to the report, Mr. Ridenour — a young man who was not in his right mind at the time of contact and who told deputies he “was high” — was pacing on the beach, behaving nonsensically, and allegedly approached and aggressively screamed at bystanders (one complainant reported Mr. Ridenour ran at him and his newborn and threw a water bottle at the baby’s feet). Deputies located a black backpack containing the client’s wallet and a medical-marijuana container on the beach; when officers collected his property they found a loaded Glock .33 sitting unsecured on his beach towel in plain view while multiple families and juveniles were in close proximity. The report notes body-worn camera (BWC) was available for the event. The State charged Mr. Ridenour with unsafe storage of a firearm (F.S. § 790.174), failure/refusal to present a medical marijuana registry ID card (F.S. § 381.986(12)(e)1), and culpable negligence / exposure to harm (F.S. § 784.05(1)) — misdemeanor-level exposures that nevertheless carry real consequences (including the possibility of county jail, fines, and serious collateral effects)

This file arose from a domestic-context stalking/cyberstalking complaint in the Milton / Douglas Drive area of Santa Rosa County. Deputies from the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office (reporting deputy Kyler S. Bohner, approving supervisor Randy Dahl, and other patrol personnel) investigated repeated, unwanted electronic messages and direct-message contacts that continued after the recipient blocked electronic communications. Deputies documented screenshots, message threads, and contemporaneous reports showing repeated outreach across social platforms and apps — the core facts supporting the domestic-stalking theory in this local, family-context dispute.Potential exposure: when charged as a domestic-violence stalking offense, the statute permits felony treatment depending on aggravators; a stalking conviction under enhanced domestic-violence subsections can result in felony exposure (commonly up to about 5 years for third-degree felony strata, with higher exposure possible under aggravating subsections). In addition to incarceration risk, a domestic-violence stalking designation brings immediate and long-term collateral consequences (no-contact orders, restrictions, and a criminal record).

This matter began with a family disturbance on December 27, 2024, at an apartment complex along Gulf Breeze Parkway in Santa Rosa County. Santa Rosa deputies — including LE Deputy Nicholas Palm Pruse (reporting officer), LE Sgt. Alvin Bicasan, and LE Deputy J. Younghansé — responded after a call for a domestic disturbance. The on-scene report documents an altercation inside a residence, EMS treatment for a seizure observed at the scene, and visible injuries consistent with a physical confrontation. Based on witness statements and the deputies’ observations, a warrant affidavit was submitted and the defendant was charged with domestic-violence battery (touch or strike). Domestic battery charged under F.S. § 784.03(1)(a)1 is typically prosecuted as a first-degree misdemeanor, carrying up to 1 year in county jail and up to a $1,000 fine. When the conduct is prosecuted under a domestic-violence theory it also triggers immediate collateral consequences — no-contact conditions, possible civil injunctions, and long-term harms to employment, housing, and reputation even where jail time is not imposed.

At first glance this file looked difficult. The arrest report (scene at SR-297 / Atlanta Ave / Gulf Beach Hwy) documented a crash with injuries, a witness who said the driver fled, and the defendant’s later identification at an urgent-care facility — facts that, on paper, supported serious charges including a felony leaving-the-scene allegation. The reporting officer and original probable-cause documents are part of the public record. But the case turned on what the prosecution could actually prove in court — and the defense’s deposition of the reporting officer produced a string of admissions and evidentiary holes that were decisive. Below are the key, strategic victories pulled from the transcript of the officer’s deposition that undermined the State’s theory and led to the eventual dismissal:

This began as a routine waterfowl hunt that quickly turned into an administrative wildlife enforcement matter. On January 4, 2025, a Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission investigator observed Mr. Michael Hamby in the field with a shotgun capable of holding more than three shells in magazine and chamber combined — a configuration expressly prohibited when taking certain migratory game birds under FWC rule 68A-12.002(4)(a). The reporting FWC officer on the resource citation is Officer Rachel Bower, and the citation reflects the FWC case and required court appearance in Escambia County Court. The charge is an administrative/wildlife rule violation tied to state conservation law. Penalties for these violations can include administrative fines, forfeiture of equipment (including firearms or ammunition), and license suspension or revocation; in some circumstances related statutory provisions can expose a hunter to additional civil or criminal consequences if other statutes are implicated. In short — even what looks like a “paper” violation can threaten livelihood, hunting privileges, and carry significant financial exposure. Complicating facts: the case was complicated by a calendaring/notice misunderstanding. The resource citation listed a court date of February 3, 2025 at 8:30 AM. The hunter appeared at the courthouse on that date but the case did not appear in the court system, so he left. After receiving a postcard advising of a warrant, he called the clerk’s office and learned the court date had been changed to February 4 and that a mailed notice had been sent (which he had not received). To clear the matter the hunter voluntarily turned himself in to the jail.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​