Pumphrey Law

Pumphrey Law If you’re facing criminal charges, call (850) 681-7777 right now. We’ll contact you right away!

Pumphrey Law is a distinguished criminal defense firm located in Tallahassee, Florida. The law firm draws on the experience and insights of its partners, attorneys, and staff. This means that clients gain the combined perspective of former prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and investigators.

People often ask what the outcome of their case will be.The truth is that every case is different. The facts, evidence, ...
08/25/2026

People often ask what the outcome of their case will be.

The truth is that every case is different. The facts, evidence, witnesses, circumstances, and legal issues all play a role.

That is why experienced legal guidance begins with understanding your unique situation, not making assumptions.

🚦 Speed alone is usually not enough for reckless driving—but extreme speed in the wrong setting can change the analysis....
08/20/2026

🚦 Speed alone is usually not enough for reckless driving—but extreme speed in the wrong setting can change the analysis.

In *Natal v. State*, Florida’s Fourth DCA affirmed a reckless driving conviction after finding that the defendant’s grossly excessive speed in a mixed residential and commercial area supported the jury’s verdict.

What happened in the case:

📌 The defendant was originally charged with vehicular homicide
📌 He was ultimately convicted of reckless driving as a lesser-included offense
📌 Evidence showed he was traveling 82 to 85 mph in a 40 mph zone
📌 The crash occurred in a mixed residential/commercial neighborhood
📌 The court noted he continued accelerating until shortly before impact

The Fourth DCA distinguished this case from situations where a driver merely exceeds the speed limit. Here, the speed was more than double the limit, the area had added traffic risks, and the defendant did not take meaningful evasive action until the last moment.

Result: conviction affirmed.

The takeaway: in Florida reckless driving and vehicular homicide cases, courts look at context. Grossly excessive speed may be enough to support recklessness when the surrounding conditions make that driving especially dangerous.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/when-does-grossly-excessive-speed-constitute-reckless-driving/

⚖️ Stand Your Ground immunity depends heavily on credibility at the pretrial hearing.In *Swift v. State*, Florida’s Firs...
08/19/2026

⚖️ Stand Your Ground immunity depends heavily on credibility at the pretrial hearing.

In *Swift v. State*, Florida’s First DCA affirmed the denial of Stand Your Ground immunity after finding the trial judge had competent, substantial evidence to reject the defendant’s claim that he acted to protect his sister.

What happened in the case:

📌 The defendant was charged with second-degree murder after a fatal stabbing
📌 He claimed he stabbed the victim while defending his sister
📌 His sister testified in support of that defense theory
📌 The trial judge found her testimony was not credible
📌 The First DCA refused to reweigh the evidence on appeal

The court emphasized that trial judges are allowed to weigh testimony and decide which witnesses are credible at Stand Your Ground immunity hearings. Because the record supported the judge’s decision, the denial of immunity was affirmed.

Result: Stand Your Ground claim denied.

The takeaway: in Florida Stand Your Ground cases, making a defense claim is not enough. If the State refutes that claim with credible evidence, and the trial judge agrees, appellate courts may not second-guess that credibility determination.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/north-fls-highest-court-rejects-stand-your-ground-claim-in-stabbing-case/

🛡️ Stand Your Ground can apply to more than deadly-force cases.In *Martin v. State*, Florida’s Fourth DCA dismissed a ba...
08/18/2026

🛡️ Stand Your Ground can apply to more than deadly-force cases.

In *Martin v. State*, Florida’s Fourth DCA dismissed a battery charge after finding that the State failed to disprove the defendant’s Stand Your Ground claim by clear and convincing evidence.

What happened in the case:

📌 The defendant and an elderly coworker got into a heated argument
📌 The defendant, who had one arm, tried to walk away multiple times
📌 The coworker allegedly blocked him, got close, poked him, and grabbed his shirt
📌 The defendant punched the coworker, breaking his nose
📌 The trial judge denied Stand Your Ground immunity, but the Fourth DCA reversed

The Fourth DCA found that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position could have feared imminent unlawful force. Because the defendant used nondeadly force and the State failed to refute his immunity claim, the case could not proceed.

Result: case dismissed under Stand Your Ground.

The takeaway: in Florida battery cases, Stand Your Ground immunity may apply before trial when the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent imminent harm.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/major-fl-court-rules-one-armed-man-punching-coworker-justified-under-stand-your-ground/

08/18/2026

The legal profession is always evolving, and the conversations happening within it matter.

As President of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Aaron believes it is important to continue discussing the issues that impact both the legal community and the people it serves.

Watch to hear what Aaron believes deserves more attention and why those conversations are important.

🗣️ Not every promise of possible leniency makes a confession involuntary.In *Green v. State*, Florida’s First DCA affirm...
08/17/2026

🗣️ Not every promise of possible leniency makes a confession involuntary.

In *Green v. State*, Florida’s First DCA affirmed a conviction after finding that the defendant’s confession was not coerced, even though officers suggested his cooperation could be shared with the judge and prosecutor.

What the court focused on:

📌 The defendant had been read his Miranda rights
📌 Officers denied threatening, mistreating, or depriving him of food, water, or bathroom breaks
📌 The interview was described as calm and non-hostile
📌 The defendant had prior experience with law enforcement
📌 Officers made clear that a recommendation was all they could offer

The First DCA looked at the totality of the circumstances and found the confession was not the product of unconstitutional coercion.

Result: conviction affirmed.

The takeaway: in Florida confession cases, courts examine the full interrogation—not just one statement by law enforcement. A confession may still be admissible if the overall circumstances show the defendant’s will was not overborne.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/when-is-a-confession-in-florida-involuntary-due-to-coercion/

🧾 Not every broken object leads to a criminal mischief conviction.In *Walker v. State*, Florida’s Third DCA reversed a c...
08/14/2026

🧾 Not every broken object leads to a criminal mischief conviction.

In *Walker v. State*, Florida’s Third DCA reversed a criminal mischief conviction after finding that the defendant did not willfully and maliciously damage the property at issue.

What happened in the case:

📌 The defendant got into an altercation with a security guard
📌 He pushed the guard into a guardhouse
📌 The guard fell into a glass door
📌 The glass door shattered
📌 The defendant was convicted of criminal mischief

The Third DCA found that the State failed to prove the defendant acted with malice toward the glass door itself. His intent toward the person could not be transferred to the property for purposes of criminal mischief.

Result: criminal mischief conviction reversed.

The takeaway: in Florida criminal mischief cases, the State must prove the defendant willfully and maliciously damaged property. Accidental property damage caused during a separate act may not be enough.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/major-fl-court-reverses-criminal-mischief-conviction-heres-why/

🎯 A jury cannot consider a defense if the judge never explains the law behind it.In *Johnson v. State*, Florida’s First ...
08/13/2026

🎯 A jury cannot consider a defense if the judge never explains the law behind it.

In *Johnson v. State*, Florida’s First DCA reversed a co***ne conviction after finding that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on subjective entrapment.

What happened in the case:

📌 The defendant was arrested after an undercover buy/bust operation
📌 He testified that officers offered him co***ne if he helped them purchase it
📌 He said he agreed because he had struggled with co***ne addiction for 25 years
📌 He claimed he never intended to sell drugs
📌 The trial judge refused to give the jury an entrapment instruction

The First DCA found that a defendant does not need overwhelming proof to receive a jury instruction on a defense. If there is any evidence supporting the defense, the jury should be allowed to consider it.

Result: conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

The takeaway: in Florida criminal cases, jury instructions matter. When evidence supports a defense theory, even if disputed, the jury must be properly instructed so it can decide whether the defense applies.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/north-fls-highest-court-reverses-conviction-due-to-failure-to-give-entrapment-instruction/

When people think about criminal defense, they often picture a courtroom.In reality, much of the work happens long befor...
08/13/2026

When people think about criminal defense, they often picture a courtroom.

In reality, much of the work happens long before a trial begins. Reviewing evidence, researching the law, speaking with clients, interviewing witnesses, and preparing a thoughtful legal strategy all happen behind the scenes.

Preparation is one of the most important parts of effective representation.

🏡 Stand Your Ground can apply even when the perceived threat turns out to be mistaken.In *State v. Vino*, Florida’s Thir...
08/12/2026

🏡 Stand Your Ground can apply even when the perceived threat turns out to be mistaken.

In *State v. Vino*, Florida’s Third DCA affirmed Stand Your Ground immunity for aggravated assault charges after finding that the defendant reasonably believed two FPL workers in his yard were potential home invaders.

What happened in the case:

📌 FPL workers entered the defendant’s locked yard using a ladder
📌 The defendant woke up after hearing his dog barking
📌 He went outside and pointed a firearm at the workers
📌 Once he realized they were FPL employees, he lowered the gun
📌 The trial court dismissed the aggravated assault and improper exhibition charges, but not the unlawful discharge count

The Third DCA affirmed the trial judge’s ruling, finding there was competent, substantial evidence supporting immunity up to the point the defendant learned the workers were not burglars.

Result: Stand Your Ground immunity affirmed in part.

The takeaway: in Florida aggravated assault cases, Stand Your Ground depends heavily on what the defendant reasonably believed at the time force was used or threatened. But immunity may end once the perceived threat is no longer present.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/major-fl-court-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-for-aggravated-assault-heres-why/

Address

553 E Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL
32308

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 6pm
Tuesday 8am - 6pm
Wednesday 8am - 6pm
Thursday 8am - 6pm
Friday 8am - 6pm

Telephone

+18506817777

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pumphrey Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category