Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida - New 1 Minute Video

Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida
Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida

Violation of probation cases are usually handled by the judge or in the division that the case was originally heard. Many of these cases can be resolved by trying to complete the conditions of probation before a court date.

Violation of Probation for Drug Cases in Tampa Bay, Florida


If a case can be handled before a warrant is issued, then jail may be avoided. Many of the judges in both felony and misdemeanor cases issue warrants for violating probation without a bond. That means that you will stay in jail until a court date is set.

In this 1 minute video, Casey Ebsary notes that if you have been charged with Probation Violation, Violation of Probation, or VOP in Florida, a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney can and will protect your rights. Some Florida circuit courts have special divisions that handle violation of probation allegations.



Drug Treatment for Probation Violation


A Tampa Drug Lawyer noted that a celebrity returned to a California to continue her drug rehabilitation. A judge had ordered her to enter drug treatment. She had previously filmed the VH-1 reality show "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew."

Tampa Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Judge Daniel Perry asked Florida probation officials contact California probation officials. Treatment was ordered late last year. Hillsborough County and Tampa Bay Area Judges are more and more inclined to offer drug treatment instead of jail.

Tampa Drug Lawyer for Violation of Probation


Often a probation violation comes when the highly technical conditions of probation have been violated. We can and help. Sometimes, violation of probation can occur for being arrested for a new charge. We may be able to help there also. We want to prevent or minimize time spent in jail. Video Courtesy CentralLaw.com - Probation Violation

Violation of Probation? Call Today For a Free Phone Consultation 1-877-793-9290 .

Federal Violation of Supervised Release


Federal Violation of Supervised Release
Casey is available to help in federal violation defense
matters by contacting him Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.


Sentencing guidelines apply in federal cases where United States district court judges are deciding what to do about alleged violations of conditions after sentencing in a federal case. These judges have much discretion. Although they use the United States sentencing guidelines as an advisory, but not mandatory, resource to decide what, if anything should be done when our federal clients are before the court.

In a strongly worded and important per curiam summary reversal today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Kimbrough that "district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines." 

In Spears v. United States, __ S.Ct. __, 2009 WL 129044 (Jan. 21, 2008), the Court explained what Kimbrough meant:

[E]ven when a particular defendant in a crack cocaine case presents no special mitigating circumstances – no outstanding service to country or community, no unusually disadvantaged childhood, no overstated criminal history score, no post-offense rehabilitation – a sentencing court may nonetheless vary downward from the advisory guideline range. The court may do so based solely on its view that the 100-to-1 ratio embodied in the sentencing guidelines for the treatment of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine creates "an unwarranted disparity within the meaning of § 3553(a)" and is "at odds with § 3553(a)." The only fact necessary to justify such a variance is the sentencing court's disagreement with the guidelines – its policy view that the 100-to-1 ratio creates an unwarranted disparity.

See Spears, __ S.Ct. at __, 2009 WL 129044 at *2 (quoting United States v. Spears, 533 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2008) (Colloton, J., dissenting)).

Spears is the latest indication that the Supreme Court is running out of patience with appellate courts and government arguments that attempt to artificially narrow judicial discretion post-Booker. Use Spears in any case involving a guideline that does not exemplify the Commission's characteristic institutional role – meaning any guideline that was not the product of (1) reliance on empirical evidence of pre-guidelines sentencing practice, or (2) review and revision in light of judicial decisions, sentencing data, and comments from participants and experts in the field.

These would include the following guidelines, among others:

  • Career offender
  • Child pornography and other sex offenses
  • Drugs
  • Economic crimes
  • Firearms
  • Immigration
  • Limitations on the availability of probation or other alternatives to
  • Incarceration
  • Relevant Conduct

For violation of supervised release sample briefs, litigation strategy memoranda and further resources on how to raise these attacks, click  "Deconstructing the Guidelines